Related Issue

Posted by Bobbapink on Jun 13, 2002 at 15:35

Re: A question of integrity (mara)

The World Bank, UNICEF, and other aid organizations sponsored the sinking of hundreds upon hundreds of wells in Bangladesh for the purpose of preventing the spread cholera, diarrhea, and other water-borne illnesses. What they didn't know was that the region's geology had very high levels of arsenic, which contaminated the ground water.

Thousands have died as a result of Arsenicosis.

Thousands more shall die.

Reports of the incident generally went along these lines: “Suddenly, the world’s most densely populated nation found itself immersed in an environmental tragedy of mind-boggling proportions.”

And of that there is no doubt. What is also of little doubt is that before the wells were sunk, hundreds of thousands died from the aforementioned water-borne illnesses.

Should these aid organizations be held liable for damages resulting from the contaminated wells even though they reduced the overall death toll by an estimated ninety percent?

Now, back to your issue. While the milk may have damaged many, how many were saved that would have otherwise died had the milk not been sent?

In both cases I think the Good Samaritan principle applies – so long as there is not intentional malice or gross negligence, that is. For gross negligence, and perhaps malice as well, Just Click Here.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]